This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-1094
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
vs.
Darren Lee Whitelow, Appellant.
Filed January 20, 2015 Affirmed Peterson, Judge
Dakota County District Court File No. 19HA-CR-08-3832
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Jessica A. Bierwerth, Assistant County Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Stephen L. Smith, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Larkin,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PETERSON, Judge
In this sentencing appeal, appellant argues that the district court abused its
discretion by revoking his probation and executing his sentence. We affirm. FACTS
Appellant Darren Lee Whitelow pleaded guilty to one count of felony domestic
assault following an incident in 2008. The district court imposed a stayed 21-month
sentence and placed Whitelow on probation for five years. Conditions of probation
included that Whitelow serve 120 days in jail, pay a fine and surcharges, submit to a
domestic-abuse assessment and follow all recommendations, follow probationary rules
and regulations, and remain law abiding.
From 2011 to 2014, Whitelow repeatedly violated the conditions of his probation,
and his conduct was the subject of three probation-violation hearings. At the first
probation-violation hearing on February 15, 2011, Whitelow admitted that he (1) did not
attend several scheduled appointments that were part of the investigation process for
Dakota County’s request to transfer his probation to Hennepin County and either did not
submit to or did not pass urine tests (positive for marijuana on all of three completed
tests); (2) did not undergo a domestic-abuse assessment despite being directed to do so on
several occasions; and (3) did not remain law abiding by being charged with driving after
revocation and failure to provide proof of insurance. Following the hearing, the district
court continued Whitelow on probation but added the requirement that he complete a
domestic-abuse program at “Home, Inc.”
At the second probation-violation hearing on February 13, 2013, Whitelow’s
probation officer alleged that Whitelow did not complete a domestic-abuse assessment,
did not maintain contact with his probation officer, and admittedly failed to abstain from
the use of illegal drugs (marijuana), which resulted in denial of Dakota County’s request
2 to transfer his probation to Hennepin County. Whitelow admitted the violations.
Following the hearing, the district court found that Whitelow violated the terms of his
probation but again reinstated him on probation. The district court added the
probationary requirement that Whitelow submit to a chemical-dependency evaluation and
follow recommendations. The district court also ordered Whitelow to serve 45 days in
jail.
A probation-violation hearing on April 4, 2014 addressed the following alleged
conduct: (1) Whitelow did not complete a domestic-abuse assessment and follow
recommendations; (2) despite Whitelow’s claim that he started classes at Home Inc., staff
there “advised that the offender had never enrolled or started the domestic program”;
(3) Whitelow did not follow the rules and regulations of probation by failing to maintain
contact with his probation officer, missing scheduled appointments, failing to provide an
accurate home address or phone number, and failing to report for a drug test;
(4) Whitelow did not complete a court-ordered chemical assessment despite being
instructed to do so on numerous occasions; and (5) Whitelow did not abstain from
alcohol or controlled substances, admitted to frequent use of marijuana, and submitted a
positive drug test for marijuana.1 Whitelow did not admit the allegations, and the district
court held a contested probation-violation hearing on April 4, 2014. Following the
hearing, the district court found that Whitelow did not comply with any of the terms and
conditions of probation, his violations were intentional and inexcusable, and the need for
1 A sixth violation was also alleged for a February 2, 2013 conviction of giving a false name to a police officer. The state agreed to eliminate that allegation because it was considered in an earlier probation-violation proceeding.
3 his confinement outweighed policies favoring his remaining on probation. The district
court revoked Whitelow’s probation, executed his prison sentence, and gave him credit
for time served.
DECISION
“A district court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence
to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that
discretion.” State v. Ornelas, 675 N.W.2d 74, 79 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
Before deciding to revoke probation, the district court must evaluate whether (1) an
offender violated a specific probationary term; (2) the violation was intentional or
inexcusable; and (3) the need for the offender’s confinement outweighs policies favoring
probation. State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980). “The decision to revoke
cannot be a reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technical violations but requires a
showing that the offender’s behavior demonstrates that he or she cannot be counted on to
avoid antisocial activity.” Id. at 251 (quotation omitted).
The district court found that appellant failed to complete a domestic-abuse
assessment, failed to complete domestic-abuse programming, failed to complete a
chemical-health assessment and follow recommendations, and continued to use alcohol
and controlled substances. The district court also found that these violations were
intentional and inexcusable.
Appellant challenges only the district court’s finding on the third Austin factor,
that the need for his incarceration outweighed the policies that favor his remaining on
probation. For the third Austin factor, the district court must analyze whether
4 “confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the
offender,” “correctional treatment . . . can most effectively be provided if [the offender] is
confined,” or “it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation
were not revoked.” State v. Modtland, 695 N.W.2d 602, 607 (Minn. 2005) (quotation
omitted). Each of these factors is met here. From the time that his first probation-
violation report was submitted in April 2010 until the time that his probation was revoked
in April 2014, appellant failed to complete the most basic terms of his probation,
including submitting to domestic-abuse and chemical-dependency assessments,
remaining law abiding, and maintaining contact with his probation officer.
At the final probation-violation hearing, Steven Gomez, the senior probation
officer for Dakota County, testified that appellant’s “cooperation and compliance with the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-1094
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
vs.
Darren Lee Whitelow, Appellant.
Filed January 20, 2015 Affirmed Peterson, Judge
Dakota County District Court File No. 19HA-CR-08-3832
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Jessica A. Bierwerth, Assistant County Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Stephen L. Smith, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Larkin,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PETERSON, Judge
In this sentencing appeal, appellant argues that the district court abused its
discretion by revoking his probation and executing his sentence. We affirm. FACTS
Appellant Darren Lee Whitelow pleaded guilty to one count of felony domestic
assault following an incident in 2008. The district court imposed a stayed 21-month
sentence and placed Whitelow on probation for five years. Conditions of probation
included that Whitelow serve 120 days in jail, pay a fine and surcharges, submit to a
domestic-abuse assessment and follow all recommendations, follow probationary rules
and regulations, and remain law abiding.
From 2011 to 2014, Whitelow repeatedly violated the conditions of his probation,
and his conduct was the subject of three probation-violation hearings. At the first
probation-violation hearing on February 15, 2011, Whitelow admitted that he (1) did not
attend several scheduled appointments that were part of the investigation process for
Dakota County’s request to transfer his probation to Hennepin County and either did not
submit to or did not pass urine tests (positive for marijuana on all of three completed
tests); (2) did not undergo a domestic-abuse assessment despite being directed to do so on
several occasions; and (3) did not remain law abiding by being charged with driving after
revocation and failure to provide proof of insurance. Following the hearing, the district
court continued Whitelow on probation but added the requirement that he complete a
domestic-abuse program at “Home, Inc.”
At the second probation-violation hearing on February 13, 2013, Whitelow’s
probation officer alleged that Whitelow did not complete a domestic-abuse assessment,
did not maintain contact with his probation officer, and admittedly failed to abstain from
the use of illegal drugs (marijuana), which resulted in denial of Dakota County’s request
2 to transfer his probation to Hennepin County. Whitelow admitted the violations.
Following the hearing, the district court found that Whitelow violated the terms of his
probation but again reinstated him on probation. The district court added the
probationary requirement that Whitelow submit to a chemical-dependency evaluation and
follow recommendations. The district court also ordered Whitelow to serve 45 days in
jail.
A probation-violation hearing on April 4, 2014 addressed the following alleged
conduct: (1) Whitelow did not complete a domestic-abuse assessment and follow
recommendations; (2) despite Whitelow’s claim that he started classes at Home Inc., staff
there “advised that the offender had never enrolled or started the domestic program”;
(3) Whitelow did not follow the rules and regulations of probation by failing to maintain
contact with his probation officer, missing scheduled appointments, failing to provide an
accurate home address or phone number, and failing to report for a drug test;
(4) Whitelow did not complete a court-ordered chemical assessment despite being
instructed to do so on numerous occasions; and (5) Whitelow did not abstain from
alcohol or controlled substances, admitted to frequent use of marijuana, and submitted a
positive drug test for marijuana.1 Whitelow did not admit the allegations, and the district
court held a contested probation-violation hearing on April 4, 2014. Following the
hearing, the district court found that Whitelow did not comply with any of the terms and
conditions of probation, his violations were intentional and inexcusable, and the need for
1 A sixth violation was also alleged for a February 2, 2013 conviction of giving a false name to a police officer. The state agreed to eliminate that allegation because it was considered in an earlier probation-violation proceeding.
3 his confinement outweighed policies favoring his remaining on probation. The district
court revoked Whitelow’s probation, executed his prison sentence, and gave him credit
for time served.
DECISION
“A district court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence
to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that
discretion.” State v. Ornelas, 675 N.W.2d 74, 79 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
Before deciding to revoke probation, the district court must evaluate whether (1) an
offender violated a specific probationary term; (2) the violation was intentional or
inexcusable; and (3) the need for the offender’s confinement outweighs policies favoring
probation. State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980). “The decision to revoke
cannot be a reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technical violations but requires a
showing that the offender’s behavior demonstrates that he or she cannot be counted on to
avoid antisocial activity.” Id. at 251 (quotation omitted).
The district court found that appellant failed to complete a domestic-abuse
assessment, failed to complete domestic-abuse programming, failed to complete a
chemical-health assessment and follow recommendations, and continued to use alcohol
and controlled substances. The district court also found that these violations were
intentional and inexcusable.
Appellant challenges only the district court’s finding on the third Austin factor,
that the need for his incarceration outweighed the policies that favor his remaining on
probation. For the third Austin factor, the district court must analyze whether
4 “confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the
offender,” “correctional treatment . . . can most effectively be provided if [the offender] is
confined,” or “it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation
were not revoked.” State v. Modtland, 695 N.W.2d 602, 607 (Minn. 2005) (quotation
omitted). Each of these factors is met here. From the time that his first probation-
violation report was submitted in April 2010 until the time that his probation was revoked
in April 2014, appellant failed to complete the most basic terms of his probation,
including submitting to domestic-abuse and chemical-dependency assessments,
remaining law abiding, and maintaining contact with his probation officer.
At the final probation-violation hearing, Steven Gomez, the senior probation
officer for Dakota County, testified that appellant’s “cooperation and compliance with the
court orders have been very poor” and identified specific instances of appellant’s recent
probation violations. Gomez testified, “[T]he essence of his probation . . . was to address
domestic violence issues and chemical dependency challenges, and there’s actually been
no movement since his – since his sentence in 2008 to complete successfully any of these
programs.” Gomez also noted that appellant’s failure to participate in a domestic-abuse
assessment placed a greater risk of harm on the victim. Gomez recommended that the
district court revoke appellant’s stay of execution because appellant was “not really
working well with probation” and because “he might be better served to work well with
supervised release . . . . It’s a much more stringent form of supervision, plus he will have
an opportunity at a later time to complete domestic programming and [chemical-
dependency] evaluations or a [chemical-dependency] treatment but with more stringent
5 supervision.” Gomez rejected the claim that appellant could not afford to participate in
the required probationary assessments and programs and suggested that the costs could
have been met through county funding or medical assistance, that other offenders have
used those methods to achieve compliance with probationary terms, and that “there has
been a lot of direction from the probation officer” in appellant’s case, without success.
In arguing against probation revocation, appellant contends that the district court’s
decision was a “reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technical violations,” appellant
did not commit further acts of domestic abuse during the pendency of his probation,
appellant “remained willing to complete the [chemical-dependency] assessment,”
appellant’s drug use posed no appreciable risk to public safety, and the district court
“could have held [appellant] accountable for his choices without casting away all
opportunity for him to remain on probation.” The only one of these contentions that is
supported by the record is that appellant did not commit further acts of domestic abuse
while on probation. Because appellant made little effort to comply with his probationary
requirements over a four-year period, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
revoking appellant’s probation. See State v. Osborne, 732 N.W.2d 249, 256 (2007)
(affirming probation revocation upon record showing offender’s “lengthy history of
criminal activity and chronic probation and treatment failures”); State v. Johnson, 679
N.W.2d 169, 177 (Minn. App. 2004) (affirming revocation of DWI offender’s probation
after offender failed to complete aftercare for chemical-dependency treatment, failed to
6 attend an impact-panel discussion pertaining to driving under the influence, and failed to
refrain from consuming alcohol).
Affirmed.